The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-02-05

law any disputed paper might be got
ten before Jury for comparison with
some paper already proven.
Attorney General Peters claimed thst
whenever there is any genuine hand
writing in court, comparison may be
made between that writing and an
other, the authenticity Of which 1t is
sought to establish, either by experts
or by the Jurors themselves.
Col. CAN'T contended that such
comparison was only admissible when
the disputed paper was the foundation
OF the action aud was in the record.
When
SUCH A PAPER WAS OUTSIDE THE RECORD
it could not be compared with another
already proven.
SLOW sre you going TO get it into
the record?' asked the Court.
"By first proving the handwriting.
Ten, and not till then, may the jury
make the comparisoD," rep led the
Colonel.
"Tbat is," said the Attorney Gen
eral, "ihe comparison may be made
when the material thing is in dispute.
we contend that
THERE LETTER3 ARE MATERIAL,
and therefore 1t would be proper for
the jury to compare them with the
letter already proven" He read a
number of Authorities in support OF
his position.
Gen. Wright said the point at Issue
WIS narrowed do wn to this: The prop
osition is that whenever a paper is
submitted, you may dump any other
paper into the jury box and tell the
jury to compare them. Because they
have proven that one letter is in Mrs,
Folks hand 8riting they claim that
they can get up and argue before the
jury that all these other letters were
also written by her.
THE COMPARISON Is ONLY ADMISSIBLE
when the pspsr in question is sought
to be put ia litigation, and it must be
proved that it is in litigation before it
can 90 TO the jury.
"How did you get those snony-
nous etters in the record?" asked the
Court.
"By proving that D,lton admitted
having written them" replied the
General.
"But suppose he had 70; admitted
itP" pursued the Court.
"Then we could only have put it
into the record by proving his hand
writing. We would have had first to
prove it's gsnulneness by some wit
ness under oatn. The only road to
the Jury Ia such a case lies Though
the witness stand"
CASE IN POINT.
The case of Cannon vs. Galloway in
2 BAxtsr wa. read by the General at
the request of the Court, showing that
the lower court in that case had re-
fused to allow the jury the use OF q
magnifying glass to examine the sigma
lures in question, and the Supreme
Court held that the lower court was
in error. The General commended that
the comparison in this case was made
by consent, and the Supreme Courts
m Gaming was that since the jury were
allo wed to act as experts they should
have been allowed to use the glass.
The General contended that the let
ters must be proven to be in Mrs.
Folks handwriting before they could
be given to the jury under any cir
cumstances.
AN RxPERT MUST EXAMINE THEM,
81 somewhat agree with you on that
point, General" said the Court.
"Thers should be some proof to show
that Mrs. Polk wrote the letters in dis
pute. The State can submit the
letters to an expert, and if he ex.
presses the opinion that they are in
the came handwriting, then, being in
the record, they can go to the jury,
who Will judge the fact by COM
parison."
The hour of l having arrived, court
adjourned until O'Clock.